"After" the Gates of Antares - a discussion of why people buy rules/support KSs

[Conquistador]

Were there any novel or interesting ideas in the original Rogue Trader rulebook? It seems to me it's just a collection of D&D monsters transposed to sci-fi and a hodgepodge of things Rick Priestly liked from comics and movies.

Kinda like Gates of Antares if you substitute video games for D&D...

Well, not having played any GW games other than a recent game of ECW based on the mechanics (which I despise 3 rolls for results level on inanity, just as I despise the melee mechanics of TSATF ,) by a close friend - and yes, I would play it again because he is my friend - so I won't comment from my level of knowledge (as much depth as gold leaf)  but here is a thought I had skimming the BtGoA thread today:

What do people use to guide their war game rules support activities?  (another thread could be about buying miniatures, etc., but let's stay focused on this one aspect in this thread please?)

When I look for a set of rules for anything (Historical, Fantasy, Science Fiction, VSF, etc.,) there are some guidelines I use in deciding to try the game and some checklists I use before I buy  the game.  But rather than throw my "tastes/prejudices/lessons learned" from playing some for of war games since the 1960s and FRPGs since OD&D (and SFRPGs shortly thereafter) I want to know what you use (cursory or detailed, sophisticated or simple,) that you use. 

Gracias,

Glenn

[6milPhil]

I typically always go for very simple, like Akky's AR:SE rules. I also like the card based turns like in TSATF, so I hack them about a little, as it is needed.

[former user]

without pretending that available rules actually do cover this need,
my main aspect in favorising certain rules (if I get Your question right), is whether they manage to depict the specific tactical challange that a certain period of warfare displays. The opposite of this are rules that try to fit all periods or those perceived as similar by the technological level. I cannot possibly game 30YW with the same rules like napoleonics (Black Powder). Or hellenistic armies with the same rules like the migration period (Warhammer ancient battles). Just to give some examples.
Certain aspects of certain warfare periods have to be covered in the rules

[Vermis]

which I despise 3 rolls for results level on inanity

Amen to that.

and yes, I would play it again because he is my friend

And that. (It's what keeps me coming back for more Malifaux, even though after each game I have genuine thoughts of giving up gaming altogether. What do you do when the host of the group you most like to game with, latches himself and other local gamers onto a game to the eventual exclusion of almost everything else, but which you can't stand? But I digress.)

But rather than throw my "tastes/prejudices/lessons learned" from playing some for of war games since the 1960s and FRPGs since OD&D (and SFRPGs shortly thereafter)

Why not? You sound eminently qualified.

Me... it's got a lot to do with the top quote. I was a regular 'veteran' at the local GW shop when Epic: Armageddon was released, along with a bunch of rereleased specialist games, for their last hurrah. Some of us gave games like Warmaster, Battlefleet Gothic and Bloodbowl a spin, but most of our attention was grabbed by Epic. Being used to 40K & FB's reams of 'wargear' options and special rules, I was a bit put off by the simplicity of it. (Marine sergeants didn't even have half-a-dozen gun options!) Then I played it and began to see the depth of the apparently shallow mechanics: strategy, initiative, zones of control, overwatch etc. It was great!

That coloured my view from then 'til now. 40K and FB then started to look like the shallower games to me, and all the things I was used to became an ever-more flimsy disguise for that. For me it came to a head when I was peering at the first (6th ed) Ogre Kingdoms book, fretting over whether to give them extra hand weapons or 'ironfists'. A point's difference between them and about as much difference in effect too (and no difference at all these days!), but it seemed like the kind of thing other players thought important. (I still remember the great spinefist vs. fleshborer debate of 3rd ed Tyranids) Then I suddenly thought, it's not. Not important. It's nonsense. What kind of game is this? It's all about fiddling points, building army lists.

That was the last time I seriously thought about playing those two games or building armies for them. I was pushed away by the nitpicking options and broken rules, but there was something else. When I joined a historical gaming club I agreed to take part in a WAB Shieldwall mini-tourney. Why not? It's historical - 'serious' gaming, right? None of the overmagicked frippery of the fantasy version.
But when the armies were built and the games rolled around, I knew full well what you meant in that first line I quoted. Less bumph, but the problem was that it was still Warhammer. Aaall the picking over individual minis, see who can do what, rolling, picking through dice, rolling, picking again, rolling, picking. Then roll more dice for the individual guys in the front rank, picking, rolling, picking. Plucking individuals out of the back rank (or the middle, if you had saxon thegns leading ceorls. I did!) and trying to rank them back up again later. Aargh! Barely a patch on the Black Powder and Pike & Shotte games I had there, though those were larger.

That was a bit of a meandering ramble. And more about what I don't go for, although it's shaped what I do like. TL;DR: the games I prefer these days are 'simple' and abstracted but with some chrome¹; the 'easy to learn, difficult to master' type; half-decent command or control mechanics, at least for the larger battle games²; rewarding of tactical play³; and an absolute minimum (if anything) of overpowered, flow-killing, game-breaking 'special' rules⁴. Good minis are a plus, if not essential, but not as a smokescreen or with a weird, warped style to make them look 'kewl'.

¹ It's one of the reasons I chose Mayhem over HoTT, though I'm not ruling out a trial or two.
² It's one of the reasons I chose Mayhem over Kings of War! In the latter only the generals and battle standards give even a slight boost to nearby nerve tests. Otherwise it's like Warhammer - character roles are as combat monsters.
³ I don't disagree with former user's finer analysis, but at this point of my historical gaming interest and knowledge, I don't mind so much.
⁴ Malifaux! AKA 'Magic The Gathering with occasional reference to miniatures'.

[Elbows]

My preferences can be seen in my own rules set.

1) I despise "I go, you go" type rules.  I can abide them in games like Hero Quest or something equally silly...but for skirmish or large tactical games, it's nonsense.

2) I agree with one of the above posters, if I'm playing something historical, the rules should create the same tactics/effectiveness of the period they're attempting to represent..otherwise, what's the point?

3) I personally prefer skirmish games with a lot of variety.

4) I vastly prefer 3rd party elements which are unplanned or used to jostle up a game, and keep both players on their toes.  Random events, weather changes, etc...bring it on.  Anything to mix up the narrative and provide a little spice.

5) I hate games which can be mathematically calculated two or three turns in advance.  "Well, you're X distance, and I can only move this distance per turn, so why bother?" etc.  I like rules that offer a chance (albeit slight) of accomplishing almost anything.

6) I don't like game mechanics which are created solely so a producer or author can say "look, I did it this way!" when in reality he's simply reinventing the wheel for no reason.  I don't believe a single mechanic in my game hasn't been used somewhere before.

7) I do like games which can scale well, or can be played at various levels of detail.  Ie. can a game be toned down for convention play, then cranked up in intensity/detail for a close fought game with your best buddy the next weekend?  I find games with basic and advanced rules generally offer a bit more.

I generally don't bother with any game which is tournament intended.  Warmachine, Warhammer, Flames of War etc.  They all have zero appeal to me because the mechanics/books/rules/new releases are all based on tournament gaming, and stat creep etc.  I don't mind point values or costs on occasion, but I'll take a scenario based game any day over a game which is primarily aimed at tournament gamers.

9) Gotta be fun.  End of the day you have to have fun playing it.  If you can laugh a bunch of times, have some closely watched dice rolls which cause everyone to scream and stomp around the room, all the better.  I've played many games in which the rules were excellent, logical, and worked...but the game itself didn't deliver any genuine joy. 

[LeadAsbestos]

The only game I've played in the past 8 years is Song of Blades and Heroes, because my opponent is a kid, the rules are easy, and we had a great time! Not exactly a detailed simulation of anything, but who cares? I'm not bashing little men together to get smarter, or more educated. I'm trying to enjoy myself.
Next up, Before the Gates of Troy, for all the above reasons!

[Dentatus]

I'm at a stage where I've given up on official rules. I find them either proprietary, ponderous, gimmicky, or too intricate for the couple gaming buddies I have right now. (The latter aren't 'bad', but require too large an investment for the casual gamer.) That's why I home brewed my own.

I still purchase the rules sets occasionally. I want to support the industry, I enjoy seeing how others work out gaming dynamics, and there's the Bigfoot-like search for a generic, simple, fast-play set I can buy and give to my friends. So far, I'm still looking.

Admittedly, much of this relates to my age and the state of the local gaming community, but it is what it is and here I am. 

Regarding KS- it's all about the minis. Quality complaints aside, I got a bucket load of figs from Sedition Wars. I scored a fair amount of stuff with Deadzone, and Anvil Industries Afterlife had coolness and credibility enough to earn my $$$. Beyond that, I've backed terrain projects like Bug Hunt Corridors and Tablewar Tiles.
Myth was pure nostalgia for D&D dungeon crawl/adventures.

Speaking of stages, it's not like I 'need' any new figs or terrain. I could invoke a hobby moratorium today - except for paint and glue -  and stay busy for the rest of 2014.   

[Pijlie]

After about 20 years of playing wargames a set of criteria does appear, as I see other people represent here. Well, these are mine:

1.
The rules are played by a reasonable amount of reasonably nice people.

2.
The rules offer interesting tactical dilemma's.

3.
They can be played within a few hours, but may be expanded upon if more time is available.

4.
The rules can be understood with under an hour of study and 15 minutes of gameplay.

5.
They must offer a feel of the period or background that I can identify with and that will inspire me to paint, build and play.

So far Black Powder, Tomorrow's War, Gaslight, Witchfinder General, Ronin, War & Conquest, Full Thrust, Necromunda and Stargrunt have met these criteria over time.

[phreedh]

Freedom of choice is the foremost factor for me.

Can I take any miniature and stat it up without having to resort to "counts as"? If that's the case, you have my ear.
If the rule set is short, concisely written and not fluff-laden you have my eyes too.
If the game is fitted for campaign play where models or units can be individually increased in skill between games, you have my money.
If it's fun to boot, you have my heart.

I'm still looking. Song of Blades & Heroes came closest, but suffered from low granularity and fluke one-shots leading to premature game endings. I also dislike the activation system, which is really the core of the game.

As an example: A lowly zombie is bashed over the head, dies a gruesome death and the otherwise intact warband skedaddles off the board due to the near-mandatory model with Leader attribute bolting. Realistic perhaps, if the necromancer flees his minions will crumble - but not much fun in the end. I've had too many occassions of sudden warband wipes like that.

[Argonor]

I buy almost any interesting rule-set I see. Often because I see it mentioned here somewhere 

If the purchased rules see action then comes down to my impression from reading them.

My support, then again, depends on the actual playability of the rules - AND if they give the right 'feel' for the period AND/OR genre.

It's all a matter of personal taste, really, as I can get the few ppl I game with to play almost anything when I provide rules, board, and minis for it 

[carlos13th]

This is coming from someone who has only had one proper game of 40k and is mostly into wargaming for painting stuff up but still has the hope to play with the models he is struggling to paint one day. So they are more things I prefer the idea of than have experience of

I was simplicity first and foremost, I don't mean a lack of tactical depth but I don't want an encyclopedia thickness rulebook that requires me to refer to it every few seconds and remember lots of stats.

I don't like the idea of winning a battle with a list before its begun or only certain units having any value, game needs to be balanced.

I prefer the idea of games that are not I go you go.

Prefer abstracted line of sight especially in skirmish games, I don't like treating a model differently due to the pose it has been sculpted into, its meant to resemble a person who is moving around frozen in a moment in a battle. As hilarious as it is to imagine a model hopping around the battlefield with one foot on a rock.

Most importantly fun, a hobby is something most people do for fun and if it feels more like work than a good times its not really worth it.

[Mick A]

There are two sorts of rules I like, fun and tactical (both preferably skirmish). For example, WWII games are popular at the local club right now, if I want a fun game I will use Bolt Action but if I want a tactical game I will use Battleground WWII for skirmish or Blitzkrieg Commander for larger forces. I like to keep my forces accurate to the period and will not play against a maxed out force (all King Tigers for example), if your going to do historical be historical...

I also like running games making them narrative, adding little descriptions to players actions can really enhance the games for all involved, IHMN is a great one for this